Actually this is exactly what I see happening on a very limited scope though. With Apple's discontinuation of their Xserve line, I believe Apple is preparing to allow a few 3rd party licensees to sell enterprise class solutions (hardware and software) based off Mac OS X Server, while Apple concentrates on the home server market. The back-end, workflow market isn't very profitable in terms of hardware anymore and never was glamorous enough for Apple. Plus the overhead of supporting IT was something Apple has never been good at. Another company, such as Dell or HP already have the support system setup for IT, I'm sure they would love the opportunity to add yet another solution that they can push to clients as iPhones and iPads infiltrate IT departments.

At some point Apple is going to want to slip into the IT back room, if only to add seamless support for their iDevices, Macs and iCloud.

Just to be clear -- my preference would be for apple to do this themselves, but if they don't want to dilute their focus for a smaller market like this, then I hope that they do license OSX so that this market can be served. They don't have to license OSX broadly, just to one or two "anointed" OEMs. And they should charge enough for the license that it's not economical for anyone to compete with them in the home market (maybe charge $200 per seat or something).

If Apple refuses to license, then perhaps someone like Rubenstein could start a company that builds an OS off of Darwin. For a server or high-end workstation target audience, it's not critical to have exactly the same UI as OSX. Just a thought...

Just to be clear -- my preference would be for apple to do this themselves, but if they don't want to dilute their focus for a smaller market like this, then I hope that they do license OSX so that this market can be served. They don't have to license OSX broadly, just to one or two "anointed" OEMs. And they should charge enough for the license that it's not economical for anyone to compete with them in the home market (maybe charge $200 per seat or something).

If Apple refuses to license, then perhaps someone like Rubenstein could start a company that builds an OS off of Darwin. For a server or high-end workstation target audience, it's not critical to have exactly the same UI as OSX. Just a thought...

Technology does not have to be commercially successful to be admired. WebOS is an elegant creation by Palm, all done in an astonishingly short amount of time (even given that it was based on Linux kernel) after Rubinstein took over in 2007. Given that he was essentially replacing a legend in Jeff Hawkins, this accomplishment was all the more remarkable.

When webOS was first released, it was more polished than Android's first version by a long shot, and arguably superior to iOS (at the time) in various features (particularly multitasking, syncing of contacts, notification, cloud-based syncing, etc.). I would be proud to leave such a legacy and hope it will live on.

I'm just tired of this perpetual fantasy that Apple will license it's Operating System. The revoking of the license to 3rd parties was Steve's top priority when us at NeXT merged with Apple and he retained control to make decisions.

Perpetuating the idea that Apple will open up it's flag ship OS to 3rd parties is the same likelihood of you ever becoming the next Steve Jobs.

I think he should ask Apple for an OSX license and start a small company to build Pro workstations catering to academics, scientists, and graphics pros. Maybe also OSX servers.

It may be too small of a market for Apple to focus on, but I bet it could be a profitable market if done right.

Why would you even need to ask for a license? Just build the machine to OS X compatible configuration, either install windows or completely free of OS. Users can choose to install OSX on it themselves. Since he would then be selling a "Wintel" machine, Apple can't go after him for violation of copy right.

Why would you even need to ask for a license? Just build the machine to OS X compatible configuration, either install windows or completely free of OS. Users can choose to install OSX on it themselves. Since he would then be selling a "Wintel" machine, Apple can't go after him for violation of copy right.

You can't sell a PC sans OS, thanks to Microsoft. And users can't install OSX themselves as the installer does a check to see what type of Apple comput it is. If the installer doesn't recognise the hardware the installer will quit. But this all has happened before, and look where that went.

So I can't buy components, build a computer, and then sell it to someone without also buying Windows and installing it?

When Dell started selling PC's with Linux pre-installed, around 1998 I believe, Microsoft sued, and won, the case where they made Dell and other computer manufactures sell their PC's with an OS installed. Didn't have to be Windows.

When Dell started selling PC's with Linux pre-installed, around 1998 I believe, Microsoft sued, and won, the case where they made Dell and other computer manufactures sell their PC's with an OS installed. Didn't have to be Windows.